Viewpoint: The disenfranchisement of the busy citizen

Over-scheduling is a well accepted truth of modern American life and one that prevents otherwise civic-minded, engaged, and well-intentioned citizens from voting under our outmoded laws.

Madhu Sridhar and State Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr.

Over-scheduling is a well accepted truth of modern American life and one that prevents otherwise civic-minded, engaged, and well-intentioned citizens from voting under our outmoded laws.

There are many reasons why qualified and motivated voters may find it difficult to get to the polls on Election Day. They may be suddenly called out of town on business, need to stay late at the office for a last-minute meeting, be home with a sick child or elderly relative, go to night school, work a second job, suddenly fall ill themselves, take a child to hockey practice, and the list goes on.

And yet, under our antiquated voting laws, only those who will be absent from their city or town on Election Day or have a physical disability preventing them from voting at the polling place or their religious beliefs prevent them from voting on Election Day are legally allowed to request an absentee ballot. The current restrictions even make it illegal for a poll-worker who is working at a polling place other than his own on Election Day to vote absentee. Many poll workers diligently refuse to abandon their posts and cannot get to their own precinct during voting hours to cast their ballots.

Most voters are surprised to learn they are not currently allowed to vote absentee if they think they may have difficulty getting to the polls for any of the reasons mentioned above, under a penalty of up to $10,000. Thousands of voters across the commonwealth already request absentee ballots for myriad reasons and no one is required to make sure that a voter’s excuse complies with current restrictions. Yet while the current law is unenforceable, it nonetheless discourages many qualified voters from actually voting.

And that’s a tragedy for our democracy. All too often it seems that government is more concerned with doing what is convenient for the government, instead of what is convenient for its citizenry. It ought to be the other way around, especially when it comes to voters exercising their rights to choose the representatives who will govern them in the first place.

That’s why the common-sense solution is to move to unconditional absentee voting, which is currently practiced by 29 other states, red and blue, rural and densely-populated alike, including California, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Washington and Arizona. With unconditional absentee voting, any voter who feels she may have difficulty getting to the polls on Election Day will be able to vote absentee for any reason.

At the upcoming Constitutional Convention on June 14, Massachusetts will have a chance to modernize its voting laws and to join the other 29 states, which allow unconditional absentee voting. Representing the League of Women of Voters of Massachusetts and the Joint Committee on Election Laws, we along with Representative Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston, have sponsored an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would allow voters to request an absentee ballot for any reason. As a constitutional amendment, this measure must pass in two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature, then move on to a popular vote. At the last Constitutional Convention on Nov. 9, 2006, the measure passed overwhelmingly. If it passes again on June 14, the measure will go before the voters as a popular referendum in November 2008.

Some have claimed that unconditional absentee voting would cost too much and might encourage fraud. While an increased volume of absentee ballots would increase mailing and handling costs at election time, such an increase is not thought to be exponential. California, the most populous state in the nation, has instituted a similar system and cost has not been a factor. Further, it is important to note that we do not advocate replacing Election Day with a vote by mail system. Rather, we merely hope to aid those citizens who have reason to believe making it to the polls would be difficult, with the state reimbursing municipalities for any extraordinary costs.

With respect to fraud, there is no evidence that those states that allow unconditional absentee voting have a higher incidence of voting fraud than those states that put conditions on voting by absentee ballot. We should balance the values of access and integrity with our desire to prevent overzealous barriers that reduce participation by legitimate voters. Voter disenfranchisement is a much more dangerous problem for the commonwealth’s system of elections than is voter fraud.

The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and voting should be as easy and accessible as possible for those who sincerely desire to fulfill their civic duty. The restrictions now placed on absentee voting are unnecessary and complicate what should be a straightforward process. The act of voting is what is most valuable, regardless of where one does it.

Madhu Sridhar is president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and State Senator Edward M. Augustus Jr. represents the 2nd Worcester District and is co-chair of the Joint Committee on Election Laws.